← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Petr
Thread ID: 17398 | Posts: 44 | Started: 2005-03-19
2005-03-19 11:01 | User Profile
[B]I have just started reading Robert William Fogel's famous book, "[I]Without Consent or Contract - The Rise and Fall of American Slavery[/I]" (1989), and I've come upon this intriguing tidbit, describing US party politics in the 1850s:[/B]
(pages 401-402:
[COLOR=DarkRed]The main threat to the economic independence and comfort of northern free labor did not come from uncontrolled sexual passions, although abolitionists worried about them too, but from southern masters and their slaves. [B]Southern masters coveted western lands and, if they had their way, it would be slaves rather than free men who occupied them.[/B] Anti-slavery candidates promised to thwart the designs of the Slave Power. They promised their white electorate that they would preserve the public domain for whites alone. This position was not purely expedient. [B]Many Republican candidates, including some of the most radical leaders of the party, detested blacks[/B]. They were quite sincere when they assured voters that as "[I]true Republicans[/I]" they "[I]cared nothing for the nigger[/I]" and that the aim of the Republican party was to "[I]make white labor respectable and honorable[/I]" by keeping Negroes, free and slave, out of the West." (33)
Since the Republican party was a coalition it also had leaders who resisted popular prejudices and who sought to align party with the struggle to widen the civil rights of free blacks. They campaigned against northern laws that excluded out-of-state blacks and for the right of blacks to education in public schools. [B]But only a minority of antislavery leaders[/B], some of whom refused to join the Republican party, such as William Garrison and Gerrit Smith, [B]stood for full equality [/B] and vigorously advocated full economic opportunity for blacks, including equal voting rights and equal access to jobs and lands. (34)
33: Quoted by L. Friedman (1982, 240) who discusses the racial views of Preston King, William Seward, Owen Lovejoy, and others.[/COLOR]
Petr
2005-03-19 11:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][B]I have just started reading Robert William Fogel's famous book, "[I]Without Consent or Contract - The Rise and Fall of American Slavery[/I]" (1989), and I've come upon this intriguing tidbit, describing US party politics in the 1850s:[/B] [/QUOTE]No doubt, many of the Republicans started out this way. But under the strain of the war their rhetoric seemed to shift toward those of the most hardline Black Republicans such as with Lincoln's second inaugeral address.
The Southerners reciprocating, although they started out vigorously advocating the extension and expansion of slavery to the western states, under the pressures of war shifted more to the more modest goals of just preserving the status quo in their own states.
That is why the confederate side is viewed as the pro-white side today, even though really the war wasn't, initially, really about racial issues, just about economic issues, of which slavery was important but certainly not the only one.
Confederates themselves have always made it clear that there cause was not about white national issues, other than in a parochial, regional sense.
2005-03-19 12:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][color=DarkRed]Southern masters coveted western lands and, if they had their way, it would be slaves rather than free men who occupied them. Anti-slavery candidates promised to thwart the designs of the Slave Power. They promised their white electorate that they would preserve the public domain for whites alone.[/color][/QUOTE] Contrary to Fogel's implications about the 'designs of the Slave Power,' the South had no desire to overrun the West with slaves. What they wanted was the ability to take their valuable property with them when they moved west, just as they might take a mule or anything else.
I would also point out that the most famous abolitionist, John Brown, specifically wanted to arm Negroes and begin a race war in which they would slaughter Southern whites. That doesn't sound very 'pro-white' to me.
2005-03-19 12:40 | User Profile
There is a book, The Southern Dream of a Caribbean Empire, 1854-1861 **it is about a related theme, Petr, you might be interested if you can track it down.
[url]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0813025125/qid=1111235716/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-7497298-6638503?v=glance&s=books&n=507846[/url]
2005-03-19 12:48 | User Profile
[B][I] - "I would also point out that the most famous abolitionist, John Brown, specifically wanted to arm Negroes and begin a race war in which they would slaughter Southern whites."[/I][/B]
John Brown was filled with murderous self-righteousness, and was apparently also deeply into the heresy of Americanism:
John Brown Reading:
[COLOR=Blue][B]"The two most sacred documents in the world are the Bible and the Declaration of Independence. It is better that a whole generation of men, women and children pass away by a violent death than that a word of either should be violated."[/B] [/COLOR]
[url]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/brown/filmmore/transcript/transcript1.html[/url]
Nevertheless, it should be remembered that even though Brown was the most [B]famous[/B] abolitionist, he was not the most influential, not among the actual movers-and-shakers in the Republican party.
Petr
2005-03-20 16:38 | User Profile
Petr,
You are right some of them were such. The American (Know-Nothing) Party was both pro-white and anti-slavery. The main reason why many Sotherners did not want it ended was because of fear of what would be done with the Afros.
On a related note: A Review of White Like Me Dennis Wheeler comments on the original article by Dr. Thomas Fleming [url]http://www.mindspring.com/~dennisw/articles/white.htm[/url]
2005-03-20 17:40 | User Profile
Abraham Lincoln on solving the Negro problem:
[url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17394[/url]
2005-03-20 22:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Contrary to Fogel's implications about the 'designs of the Slave Power,' the South had no desire to overrun the West with slaves. What they wanted was the ability to take their valuable property with them when they moved west, just as they might take a mule or anything else. What's the difference?
I would also point out that the most famous abolitionist, John Brown, specifically wanted to arm Negroes and begin a race war in which they would slaughter Southern whites. That doesn't sound very 'pro-white' to me.[/QUOTE]True. Which is why most Northerners distrusted him.
2005-03-20 22:41 | User Profile
At the Phora, somebody made a clever comparison between the Antebellum South's slaveowners and today's plutocrats who import coolie laborers from Latin America or Southeast Asia.
Why is it that "white nationalists" are smart enough to attack the second while they defend the memory of the first to the death? The plantation owners of the 1800's who brought in slaves did the same thing to America as the Fortune 500 is doing today: introducing non-whites for cheap labor and disenfranchising white Americans in the process.
The more one thinks about it, the more anti-slavery seems like the more logical "pro-white" position to take.
2005-03-21 00:50 | User Profile
Antiyuppie,
[QUOTE]The more one thinks about it, the more anti-slavery seems like the more logical "pro-white" position to take.[/QUOTE]
You are very right. That was my point about the American (Know-Nothing) Party. Many of the Know-Nothing were consistent in that they attack Northern Capitalist for importing alien non-Protestants into America as well as attacking the plantation owners of the South who brought Africans into America. Somes of these Know-Nothing joined the Republican Party.
The real fear of Sotherners was not lose of Slave Labor but Afros running wild over America, they were proven right.
Some Quotes: [QUOTE]"The negroes would be a good riddance. A hired man is far cheaper than a man whose father and mother, his wife and his twelve children have to be fed, clothed, housed, nursed, taxes paid, and doctor's bills?all for his half-done, slovenly, lazy work. So for years we have thought?negroes a nuisance that did not pay."-Mary Boykin Chesnut
"But it was found that the public mind would not yet bear the proposition, nor will it bear it even at this day. Yet the day is not distant when it must bear and adopt it, or worse will follow. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably and in such slow degree as that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their place be pari passu filled up by free white laborers. If on the contrary it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up."- Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography
"Now what are we fighting for? We are fighting for the idea of race." -The Daily Richmond Enquirer, November 1864
"In this enlightened age, there are few I believe but what will acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil in any country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white than to the black race, and while my feelings are stronger enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former."- Gen Robert E. Lee
"The one excuse for slavery which the South can plead without fear before the Judgement bar of God is the blacker problem which their emancipation will create."- Gen Robert E. Lee
"You will never prosper with the blacks, and it is abhorrent to a reflecting mind to be supporting and cherishing those who are plotting and working for your injury, and all of whose sympathies and associations are antagonistic to yours. I wish them no evil in the world ? on the contrary, will do them every good in my power, and know that they are misled by those to whom they have given their confidence; but our material, social, and political interests are naturally with the whites."- Gen Robert E. Lee March 12, 1868
"The question of supplying labour to the South is one of vital importance in which all classes are concerned and particularly the agriculturist, inasmuch as regular and constant work is more necessary to his prosperity than in most of the other industrial pursuits. I believe this can only be secured by the introduction of a respectaable class of labourers from Europe, for although a temporary benefit might be derived from importation of the Chinese and Japanese, it would result I fear in eventual injury to the country and her institutions. We not only want reliable labourers, but good citizens, whose interests and feelings would be in unison with our own. . ." Gen Robert E. Lee 1869
The Rainbow Confederacy? NOT! [url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13363[/url][/QUOTE]
2005-03-21 11:54 | User Profile
Great point, AntiYuppie, I have often thought the same thing myself that keeping black slaves is the same as having illegal laborers today. It was one reason that the South was able to pay higher revenues. As much as I like my heritage, I do not defend the use of black slaves and wish that they were deported to Africa.
Faust,
That is a great set of quotes. Mary Chestnut's point about a hired laborer being cheaper than a black and his big family is great. Today instead of the owner of the business paying for the expenses of the slave and his family, we have the taxpayers paying for the illegal's expenses and that of his family.
2005-03-21 14:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust] True. Which is why most Northerners distrusted him.[/QUOTE] Yes, he was so distrusted that they composed a song about him, 'John Brown's Body', and Northern preachers called him a martyr and compared him not unfavorably to Christ. This song provided the tune for the truly repugnant 'Battle Hymn of the Republic,' the lyrics of which demonstrate that Bush's present messianic foreign policy is nothing new.
2005-03-21 14:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=skemper]Great point, AntiYuppie, I have often thought the same thing myself that keeping black slaves is the same as having illegal laborers today. It was one reason that the South was able to pay higher revenues. As much as I like my heritage, I do not defend the use of black slaves and wish that they were deported to Africa.[/QUOTE] Most of the blacks were imported before the beginning of the 19th century, and the Constitution included a ban on further foreign importation. Black slaves were mostly imported by Northern slave traders, not by Southern ones, and they were used in the North and the South. Because of the influx of white labor into the Northern states, slaves eventually became uneconomical, and the institution was therefore abandoned. In the South, the population density was so low, that there was simply not enough free white labor to produce the amount of cotton that the North and Europe demanded, so the institution of slavery endured. Despite its economic usefulness, most Southerners were very ambivalent towards slavery. The general feeling was that they had a tiger by the tail, with no good way to end the institution without the danger of masses of uneducated blacks being released into their communities. This fear was, of course, realized when the North decimated the South, ended slavery during Reconstruction, and used the newly-freed blacks as political pawns.
2005-03-21 15:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust] economic issues, of which slavery was important but certainly not the only one. [/QUOTE]
Horse Hockey!! Slavery had nothing whatever to do with the civil war. If slavery had been the issue, the war would never have ocurred due to the the fact that:
Lincoln never said he wanted to end slavery. It was ol' Abe's plan to confine the institution to the states where it already existed and not let it spread any farther. Exactly what the South wanted!
The supreme court had already issued the Dred Scott decision EFFECTIVELY MAKING SLAVERY THE LAW OF THE LAND!
The civil war war was fought first, last and always over [B][U][I]secession! [/I][/U][/B]
2005-03-21 19:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Yes, he was so distrusted that they composed a song about him, 'John Brown's Body', and Northern preachers called him a martyr and compared him not unfavorably to Christ. This song provided the tune for the truly repugnant 'Battle Hymn of the Republic,' the lyrics of which demonstrate that Bush's present messianic foreign policy is nothing new.[/QUOTE]Well you're right, history books say many northerners looked on him as a hero. It was Emerson (hardly a preacher though) who said he'd make the gallows look "as glorious as the cross" and Union troops did use to sing "John Brown's Body" when the war began. But remember at the time of Harper's Ferry he thought he'd trigger a general uprising, but people thought he must be insane.
I'd just call it the radicalizing effects of war.
2005-03-21 21:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE]"The negroes would be a good riddance. A hired man is far cheaper than a man whose father and mother, his wife and his twelve children have to be fed, clothed, housed, nursed, taxes paid, and doctor's bills?all for his half-done, slovenly, lazy work. So for years we have thought?negroes a nuisance that did not pay." - Mary Boykin Chesnut[/QUOTE] Her perspective, however, was that of the wife of a U.S. Senator who had children by one of his slaves. I don't trust her economic analysis.
2005-03-21 21:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mwdallas]Her perspective, however, was that of the wife of a U.S. Senator who had children by one of his slaves. I don't trust her economic analysis.[/QUOTE] In [u]Time On the Cross[/u], Fogel and Engerman concluded that slave labor, on a large plantation scale, if it was administered well, could be slightly more efficient than free labor. However, after you take into account the far more common situtation of the smallholder with only one or two slaves, and the fact of poor administration, and the long-term care required for young and old slaves, I think it is obvious that slavery could not compete with the industrial factory system in the long term.
2005-03-22 00:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OPERA96]Horse Hockey!! Slavery had nothing whatever to do with the civil war. Ignoring the 900pound gorilla may be a common southron rhetorical strategy, but its never really held any water.
If slavery had been the issue, the war would never have ocurred due to the the fact that:
[QUOTE]2. The supreme court had already issued the Dred Scott decision EFFECTIVELY MAKING SLAVERY THE LAW OF THE LAND![/QUOTE]A decision overturned by the war. 100 divisions trumps even the best Supreme Court case argument, and Taney's wasn't one of the best by even very credible conservative accounts, like Bork's.
2005-03-22 04:12 | User Profile
Okiereddust,
I agree I think radical Afro-loving slavery abolitionists caused the War, but I do not think Southerner fought to protect plantation owners. They fought out of fear of Afros being given citizenship. I suppose one could make a case that the Southerners miscalculated and made things worse. But those evil loony abolitionists wanted war worked hard to bring it about. The events at "Harper's Ferry" and the lovefest for John Brown after his death destroy Southern trust in the ââ¬ÅYankee.ââ¬Â Lincoln started the war by attacking Charleston. The Feds attack the South first. My ancestor rode with Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest till the bitter end he just a poor farm boy from Mississippi fighting for his home.
More quotes:
[QUOTE]"[Mississippi] has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races...ââ¬Â-Jefferson Davis Resignation speech to the U.S. Senate, 1861
"You know I am a poor man having none of the property said to be the cause of the present war. But I have a wife and some children to rase in honour and never to be put on an equality with the African race."-Anonymous Confederate soldier, in a letter to a friend
[url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13363[/url] [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Actually, the original Klan won an important victory, although the full imposition of the Confederate ideology and the restoration of the original America did not ever come to fruition. But the original Klan ran the Union troops out of the South by 1877. This allowed the Southern states to regain control of their internal affairs. And what was their reaction to this newfound freedom? They instituted Jim Crow and saved America from the implementation of the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act for nearly 90 years.
By 1927, the President of the United States led a procession of several hundred thousand robed Klansmen down Pennsylvania Boulevard which showed how that white America had buried the hatchet from the Civil War and were committed to maintain their control over this country. But the North "broke faith" again after WWII by allowing Asians rights of citizenship and then imposing Civil Rights legislation on the South to the detriment of the entire country and Western civilization.
It took nearly 100 years for the Equalitarian religion to work its way into the American law books and policies. But once done, it has produced devastating effects for all concerned.
[url]http://www.mindspring.com/~dennisw/articles/white.htm[/url][/QUOTE]
2005-03-22 04:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]In [u]Time On the Cross[/u], Fogel and Engerman concluded that slave labor, on a large plantation scale, if it was administered well, could be slightly more efficient than free labor. However, after you take into account the far more common situtation of the smallholder with only one or two slaves, and the fact of poor administration, and the long-term care required for young and old slaves, I think it is obvious that slavery could not compete with the industrial factory system in the long term.[/QUOTE]Well I don't know who Fogel and Engerman were, and the merits of their analysis. But if it was correct, slaves should have been of minimal value. The great wealth plantation owners amassed by buying and selling slaves (slaves were where the majority of southern capital lay) refutes this.
Although it is true that in its later years the plantation South was under increasing economic pressure.
2005-03-22 15:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Well I don't know who Fogel and Engerman were, and the merits of their analysis. But if it was correct, slaves should have been of minimal value. The great wealth plantation owners amassed by buying and selling slaves (slaves were where the majority of southern capital lay) refutes this.
Although it is true that in its later years the plantation South was under increasing economic pressure.[/QUOTE] Why should slaves have been of minimal value? The ownership of a slave consisted of the rights to a potential future stream of earnings that he could produce for the rest of his life. That would have been substantial. In contrast, freeman were paid by the day or week. Furthermore, a great deal of capital did lie in slaves, but the plantation owners amassed their wealth by the selling of cotton, not by the selling of slaves. The myth that slaveholders regularly bred their slaves for profit is also addressed by the aforementioned book.
2005-03-22 15:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust] Well how come the South disliked ol'Abe's election so much it seceded? Outer space aliens?[/QUOTE] Well, for one thing, ol' Abe threatened to invade the South in his inaugural address. That made South Carolina secede. Then ol' Abe tried to force the other Southern states to provide troops to attack Carolina (without the approval of Congress, I might add.) That caused the rest of the South to secede. So, no, it wasn't space aliens. Just Lincoln being his regular ol' sonfabitch self.
2005-03-22 16:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Lincoln started the war by attacking Charleston.[/QUOTE] Lincoln didn't attack Charleston; he refused to withdraw his troops.
2005-03-22 16:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mwdallas]Lincoln didn't attack Charleston; he refused to withdraw his troops.[/QUOTE] He did more than that. He tried to secretly resupply them with materiel after specifically agreeing not to.
2005-03-22 20:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Ignoring the 900pound gorilla may be a common southron rhetorical strategy, but its never really held any water.[/QUOTE] [COLOR=Sienna]No, ignoring the 900 pound gorilla is [B]not[/B] the problem. The problem is your insistence on recognizing [B][U]a gorilla that doesn't exist![/B] [/COLOR] [/U]
[Quote]Well how come the South disliked ol'Abe's election so much it seceded? Outer space aliens?[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=Sienna]Gawd! This is like talking to a drunk! Lincolns election was not the spur for secession - it was a perceived loss of states rights that greatly preceded the election of our 16th president. Do you have any knowledge of history beyond that which you see on the Disney channel? [/COLOR]
[QUOTE]...even the best Supreme Court case argument, and Taney's wasn't one of the best by even very credible conservative accounts, like Bork's.[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=Sienna]Sez you. Apparently the people at the time disagreed with you as evidenced by the fact that they named a town after him in Maryland. I don't know how Bork enters into this. Maybe your dealer is selling you bad stuff?[/COLOR]
2005-03-24 19:06 | User Profile
Hey Okie: Lost the courage of your convictions? You silence is shouting that you have no argument!
2005-03-24 19:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Why should slaves have been of minimal value? The ownership of a slave consisted of the rights to a potential future stream of earnings that he could produce for the rest of his life. That would have been substantial. In contrast, freeman were paid by the day or week.
Why would slaves be of great value if they cost more to operate with then freemen. If Sam's cost [B]more[/B] than Target, would I pay anything for a membership there? Or could I sell a membership to anyone else for much money? Even if I maybe got a little more time on my credit account? I don't think so.
Furthermore, a great deal of capital did lie in slaves, but the plantation owners amassed their wealth by the selling of cotton, not by the selling of slaves. The myth that slaveholders regularly bred their slaves for profit is also addressed by the aforementioned book.[/QUOTE]If you have a business, and the capital consists of largely in slaves, then your business is ipso facto slave management, and when you buy or sell your business you are in essense buying and selling slaves when you buy or sell your business, and of course essentially just cashing in on your slaves when you sell products from your business, such as cotton. That's what I meant to say.
I think you might be right about the buying and selling of slaves. This I think was done by a certain segment of the plantation industry, a lot of it in Virginia. (Where the soil had been depleted for regular plantation operations). Perhaps as you say most plantation owners princibly bread slaves for their own operations, not for others. But for whatever purpose, this was the activity that principly made them rich, generating their permanent capital. Unlike farmers today, their land and real estate holdings were not a large part of their net worth. They farmed land for a few years, depleted it, and moved on.
That's why slavery was such a crucial economic issue for the South. Without title to its slaves, the South was essentialy pauperized, on paper before the war, in reality afterwords.
2005-03-24 19:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Well, for one thing, ol' Abe threatened to invade the South in his inaugural address. That made South Carolina secede. Then ol' Abe tried to force the other Southern states to provide troops to attack Carolina (without the approval of Congress, I might add.) That caused the rest of the South to secede. So, no, it wasn't space aliens. Just Lincoln being his regular ol' sonfabitch self.[/QUOTE]Why should, Sweet ole Abe threatening to invade start a war? If Britney Spears instead of marrying that loser had had eyes on me and had threatened to take over my house, tie me up, and use and abuse me, do you think I would have put up much of a fight. "Please no I have a headache" :lol:
2005-03-24 19:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mwdallas]Lincoln didn't attack Charleston; he refused to withdraw his troops.[/QUOTE]Have to side with Q on this one. Abe used Chareston the same way FDR used Pearl Harbor, except the Fed's had much less justification for remaining in Fort Sumter, and Abe was much more clumsy. They had already abandoned every other federal fort within the boundaries of the confederacy, plainly acknowledging them as provocations.
2005-03-24 20:02 | User Profile
Okie: Why do you refuse to answer me?
2005-03-24 20:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Well, for one thing, ol' Abe threatened to invade the South in his inaugural address. [/QUOTE]
Link?
2005-03-24 23:33 | User Profile
Okiereddust,
You have a thing for Britney Spears? [QUOTE]If Britney Spears instead of marrying that loser had had eyes on me and had threatened to take over my house, tie me up, and use and abuse me, do you think I would have put up much of a fight. "Please no I have a headache"[/QUOTE]
I think Hillary Duff and Sara Paxton are better looking.
2005-03-25 00:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Have to side with Q on this one. Abe used Chareston the same way FDR used Pearl Harbor, except the Fed's had much less justification for remaining in Fort Sumter, and Abe was much more clumsy. They had already abandoned every other federal fort within the boundaries of the confederacy, plainly acknowledging them as provocations.[/QUOTE] Side with Q????? He and I didn't disagree on anything.
The Union did not "attack" Charleston. Its refusal to withdraw its troops, despite the Confederacy's offer of compensation, is undoubtedly a "provocation", but it cannot be characterized as an "attack".
2005-03-25 00:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Why would slaves be of great value if they cost more to operate with then freemen.[/QUOTE] I don't believe anyone here has proven, or even claimed, that slaves cost more to operate than freemen. If I recall, F & E argued that it was a close call, and Hummel (I believe) argued that chattel slavery might not have been viable if certain externalized costs (particularly relating to capture of runaway slaves) had been internalized. And don't fundamental principles of economics dictate this conclusion? Market mechanisms should cause the price of slaves, and thus the profitability of the "slave management business", to vary with the price of non-slave labor. At some point, at a low enough freeman's wage rate, the price/value of a slave would be driven to zero.
[QUOTE][B]Market prices for slaves reflect their substantial economic value.[/B] Scholars have gathered slave prices from a variety of sources, including censuses, probate records, plantation and slave-trader accounts, and proceedings of slave auctions. These data sets reveal that [B]prime field hands went for four to six hundred dollars in the U.S. in 1800, thirteen to fifteen hundred dollars in 1850, and up to three thousand dollars just before Fort Sumter fell.[/B] Even controlling for inflation, the prices of U.S. slaves rose significantly in the six decades before South Carolina seceded from the Union. By 1860, Southerners owned close to $4 billion worth of slaves. [B]Slavery remained a thriving business on the eve of the Civil War: Fogel and Engerman (1974) projected that by 1890 slave prices would have increased on average more than 50 percent over their 1860 levels.[/B]
[url]http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/?article=wahl.slavery.us[/url][/QUOTE]
2005-03-25 19:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OPERA96]Link?[/QUOTE] Opera96, Lincoln threated the South in his characteristic, lawerly way -- "In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion -- no using of force against or among the people anywhere."
Up until this point, nobody had even mentioned the possibility of an invasion, so when Lincoln specifically mentioned the possibility of one, it was meant as a threat. In other words, it is much like if I were to say to you, 'I would never dream of shooting you in the face, unless you were to refuse to hand over your wallet.' That is clearly a threat.
Link -- [url="http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/1inaug.htm"]http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/1inaug.htm[/url]
2005-03-25 19:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mwdallas]IMarket mechanisms should cause the price of slaves, and thus the profitability of the "slave management business", to vary with the price of non-slave labor. At some point, at a low enough freeman's wage rate, the price/value of a slave would be driven to zero.[/QUOTE] Exactly. I was trying to make the point to Okie that there was not enough free labor in the rural antebellum South to provide the cotton output that the North and Europe demanded. That was why slaves were useful and valuable.
2005-03-25 21:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Opera96, Lincoln threated the South in his characteristic, lawerly way -- "In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion -- no using of force against or among the people anywhere."
Up until this point, nobody had even mentioned the possibility of an invasion, so when Lincoln specifically mentioned the possibility of one, it was meant as a threat. In other words, it is much like if I were to say to you, 'I would never dream of shooting you in the face, unless you were to refuse to hand over your wallet.' That is clearly a threat.
Link -- [url="http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/1inaug.htm"]http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/1inaug.htm[/url][/QUOTE]
That is just flat out [I][B]insane![/B][/I] Are you saying that he treatened an invasion because he said there would be no invasion? Did he also threaten a tsunami that would cover the south with forty feet of water by saying that there would be no tsunami? Ya know, for the life of me, I cannot figure out what southerners want. Do you wish to attempt to secede again? Do you want to re-fight the civil war? Do you actually believe that you would be better off living in the CSA instead of the USA? Also, since the south is now primarially black, how do think White people would fare in their new land?
Frankly, I wish you [I]could[/I] secede! At least that would mean an end to the constant "Sothron" belly aching about the "war of northern aggression", etc.
2005-03-25 23:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Exactly. I was trying to make the point to Okie that there was not enough free labor in the rural antebellum South to provide the cotton output that the North and Europe demanded. That was why slaves were useful and valuable.[/QUOTE]So you are saying there was a labor shortage overall, and Southerners kept using slaves cause there weren't enough freemen?
You know that ironically is exactly what Jorge says we need (mainly non-white) immigrants for - to do the jobs Americans can't or won't do.
Simple market economics refutes the argument in this case. And also in the case of the North. If freemen were cheaper, the South was certainly free to advertise for immigrants. There certainly were a lot of them going up Nawth.
Now they could argue that they just had to keep their slaves occupied. But if that was the case, slaves were costing them money, they wouldn't have been able o get much from selling them, instead of the quite decent sums that were what helped make Southern Plantation owners rich.
I question that economic analysis. I've seen others that came up with quite different conclusions - that slavery in the form of plantation labor could be very profitable, as the costs were so minimal.
There is an interesting point though demand for cotton had dropped off by the war. The South was no longer making money hand over fist selling cotton, as it was now in the midst of increasingly tough competition from places like India. The South now argued it needed slavery, because otherwse it coudn't compete and plantations would go out of business. Not really an argument of the comparative inefficiency of slave labor.
2005-03-25 23:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OPERA96]That is just flat out [I][B]insane![/B][/I] Are you saying that he treatened an invasion because he said there would be no invasion? Did he also threaten a tsunami that would cover the south with forty feet of water by saying that there would be no tsunami? No. Read just slightly between the lines. It sounds like what the way the Soviet Union used to threaten invasions "we're just sending in troops to restore order, etc. etc. > Ya know, for the life of me, I cannot figure out what southerners want. Do you wish to attempt to secede again? Do you want to re-fight the civil war? Do you actually believe that you would be better off living in the CSA instead of the USA? Duh
Also, since the south is now primarially black, how do think White people would fare in their new land? You must have watched too many "Song of the South" episodes. The South is hardly darker now than New York City, where alot of them went.
2005-03-25 23:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mwdallas]Side with Q????? He and I didn't disagree on anything.
The Union did not "attack" Charleston. Its refusal to withdraw its troops, despite the Confederacy's offer of compensation, is undoubtedly a "provocation", but it cannot be characterized as an "attack".[/QUOTE]Well you seemed to disagree on attacking Charleston and a couple of other things. You were right technically, but the real issue under discussion when this topic is brought up is who started the civil war. What you were driving at I'm not sure.
I agree, if you aren't sure what someone's saying or getting at, its hard to say you disagree with them.
2005-03-26 00:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE]You know that ironically is exactly what Jorge says we need (mainly non-white) immigrants for - to do the jobs Americans can't or won't do.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure it's ironic, but it is the same principle. The point was to use cheap African labor for profit.
2005-03-26 00:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]Why is it that "white nationalists" are smart enough to attack the second while they defend the memory of the first to the death? The plantation owners of the 1800's who brought in slaves did the same thing to America as the Fortune 500 is doing today: introducing non-whites for cheap labor and disenfranchising white Americans in the process.
The more one thinks about it, the more anti-slavery seems like the more logical "pro-white" position to take.[/QUOTE] Very good point. Although, I think it's possible to defend the culture, history, and, above all, the Euro-American people of the South without being pro-slavery or pro-Confederacy. I think the late Sam Francis or other paleocons would argue something along those lines.
2005-03-26 00:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mwdallas]I'm not sure it's ironic, but it is the same principle. The point was to use cheap African labor for profit.[/QUOTE]The difference of course is that immigrants today all are acknowledged to be [I]de facto,[/I] and fairly rapidly [I]de jure[/I], citizens, where Southerners thought they could avoid this inherent problem and evade granting this.
2005-03-26 13:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OPERA96]That is just flat out insane! Are you saying that he treatened an invasion because he said there would be no invasion? Did he also threaten a tsunami that would cover the south with forty feet of water by saying that there would be no tsunami? I quite clearly explained how this quote was meant as a threat. The other posters seemed to have no difficulty grasping it. [QUOTE=OPERA96]Ya know, for the life of me, I cannot figure out what southerners want. Do you wish to attempt to secede again? Do you want to re-fight the civil war? Do you actually believe that you would be better off living in the CSA instead of the USA? Also, since the south is now primarially black, how do think White people would fare in their new land?
Frankly, I wish you could secede! At least that would mean an end to the constant "Sothron" belly aching about the "war of northern aggression", etc.[/QUOTE]Excellent. Then I can count on you as an ally if we ever get the chance again.